客户不想办理银行卡，可在我行任意网点办理结算存折并且签约理财门户关系.

客户本人持有效公民身份证、绍兴银行兰花卡，到我行任意网点进行资金账户查询。

个人基金产品购买，如果该购买的产品所对应的TA未开户，则系统会自动开户。

个人定期定额业务指基金定投业务，是指投资者与本行签订协议，以固定的周期、固定的金额投资于指定的开放式基金，并由本行按照定投协议自动为投资者发起定期定额申购交易的业务。

投资者可于每个约定的投资日期1个工作日之后通过“客户历史委托查询”查询定期定额申购交易发起情况。

客户选择购买的基金产品的风险等级须低于或等于客户风险等级。

个人客户选择购买的基金产品风险高于其风险承受能力，则不予购买。

个人基金业务需投资人或代理人凭有效身份证件和凭证办理。

客户选择购买的基金产品的风险等级须低于或等于客户风险等级。

基金产品赎回分为份额赎回和金额赎回。

当出现基金投资人坚持要购买产品风险超越其风险承受能力的基金产品的情况，我行不能给予购买。

若基金存在冻结情况，则基金份额冻结的部分不接受赎回申请，若投资人赎回数量大于该投资人账户中可赎回的基金数量，该赎回无效。

投资者赎回基金须于基金管理公司开放日的交易时间办理申请手续。投资人在开放日交易时间之外的申请，作为赎回申请的预受理，其基金份额申购价格按照下个开放日价格。

机构投资者要求被授权人持企业法人代码证、单位营业执照副本、机构法人对基金业务经办人员的授权书原件、法人代表身份证、被授权人身份证等原件到我行任一网点网点办理签约。

基金分红包括：现金分红和红利再投资。

当出现基金投资人坚持要购买产品风险超越其风险承受能力的基金产品的情况，我行要求基金投资人填写《绍兴银行客户风险声明书》进行书面确认，基金销售系统提示基金投资人再次输入密码予以确认。

个人基金业务均需投资人本人凭有效身份证件和凭证办理。

系统自动对机构客户默认的风险评级为高，因此机构客户不必进行风险承受能力测试和风险承受能力评估卷的填写。

如果客户不想进行定期定额的投资，不可以手动的关闭该定投类协议实现。

基金销售业务包括两类：账户类业务与交易类业务。

基金经营机构应妥善保存客户交易终端信息和开户资料电子化信息，保存期限不得少于15年。

保管箱内所存物品如因自然原因变质或损坏，或遇不可抗力灾害而导致损失的，本行概不负责。

保管箱业务是租箱人为安全保存贵重物品和重要凭证，向我行租用保管箱进行保管的一项业务。

符合本操作规程的单位和个人均可向本行申请租用保管箱，申请租用保管箱须办理书面申请手续，并遵守相关租约。

目前暂未专门设置保险箱押金科目，故押金金额收取在26200601手机银行卡押金科目下。

目前只有个人客户可向本行申请租用保管箱，申请租用保管箱须办理书面申请手续，并遵守相关租约、说明。

外国人及港、澳、台同胞租用保管箱的，需由大陆居民提供担保。

保管箱到租赁期限届满日为止，如租户既未办理续租手续，又未办理退租手续的，租赁期限届满次日开始自动转为续租一期。

本行保护租用人的合法正当权益，遵循“存取自由，方便快捷，安全保密”的原则。

凡具有完全民事行为能力的中国公民、港澳台同胞和外国人，依法成立并可在中国境内从事经营活动的国内外公司、企业、其他经济组织、社会团体、外国或国际组织驻华机构，均可在本行办理保管箱租赁业务

保管箱内可存放金饰珠宝、字画古董等贵重物品以及存单、存折、屋契、债权、股票等有价证券、党和国家秘密文件和资料

保管箱租用人可带其随同人员一起进入保管箱库内

保管箱业务租金收取，可不复印客户身份证件

乙方应妥善保管保管箱的箱匙，如有遗失或被窃，应凭本人有效身份证件及其他相关证明立即向甲方申请办理书面挂失手续，挂失有效期为三十天。

保管箱逾期满3个月（含3个月），乙方未办理续租或退租手续的，甲方可向公证机关申请公正凿箱，对箱内物品进行登记保管。

必要时银行可要求保险箱租用人开箱检查。

保管箱的租用时间按期计算，分为一年期、二年期、三年期、五年期共四个租期，不足一个租期按一期计。

保管箱业务中凿箱手续费为500元/次。

保管箱挂失费（印鉴、密码、钥匙）手续费为每项10元。

乙方可自行配置保管箱钥匙

在客观规律面前，人的主观能动性表现在___

事物的联系和运动之间的关系___

唯物辩证法的总特征是___

___

“割下来的手就不再是人手”这句话体现了___

唯物辩证法认为发展的实质是___

区分新事物和旧事物的标志在于看它们___

质量互变规律揭示了___

质和事物的存在是___

在实际工作中，要注意掌握分寸，防止“过”或“不及”，其关键在于___

区分量变和质变的根本标志是看___

量变的复杂性是指___

量变中的阶段性部分质变表现了___

量变中的局部性部分质变是___

揭示事物发展的趋势和道路的规律是___

“肯定和否定相互渗透，在一定意义上，肯定就是否定。”这是一种___

事物的否定方面是指___

作为辩证的否定的“扬弃”是___

辩证的否定是事物发展的环节,因为辩证的否定___

否定之否定规律___

事物发展的周期性体现了___

直线论的错误在于只看到___

循环论的错误在于___

对立统一规律揭示了___

唯物辩证法的实质和核心是___

辩证法所说的矛盾是指___

矛盾的基本属性是___

依据是___

矛盾问题的精髓是___

题的方法都是___

“任何个别（无论怎样）都是一般”。这句话的正确含义是___

在唯物辩证法看来，水果同苹果、梨、香蕉、桔子等的关系是___

“是就是是，不是就是不是，除此之外都是鬼话。”这是一种___

真象和假象的区别在于___

有的哲学家说，在大风扬起的尘土中，每一粒尘土的运动状况都是纯粹必然的。这是种___

“或然率”是指___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What does the author think of the 2015 report by the Census Bureau?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What does the author say about the Jones-Klenow method?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What do Jones and Klenow think of the comparison between France and the U.S. in terms of real consumption per person?___

Economically speaking, are we better off than we were ten years ago? Twenty years ago? In their thirst for evidence on this issue, commentators seized on the recent report by the Census Bureau, which found that average household income rose by 5.2% in 2015. Unfortunately, that conclusion puts too much weight on a useful, but flawed and incomplete, statistic. Among the more significant problems with the Census’s measure are that: 1) it excludes taxes, transfers, and compensation like employer-provided health insurance; and 2) it is based on surveys rather than data. Even if precisely measured, income data exclude important determinants of economic well-being, such as the hours of work needed to earn that income. While thinking about the question, we came across a recently published article by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, which proposes an interesting new measure of economic welfare. While by no means perfect, it is considerably more comprehensive than average income, taking into account not only growth in consumption per person but also changes in working time, life expectancy, and inequality. Moreover, it can be used to assess economic performance both across countries and over time. The Jones-Klenow method can be illustrated by a cross-country example. Suppose we want to compare the economic welfare of citizens of the U.S. and France in 2005. In 2005, as the authors observe, real consumption per person in France was only 60% as high as the U.S., making it appear that Americans were economically much better off than the French on average. However, that comparison omits other relevant factors: leisure time, life expectancy, and economic inequality. The French take longer vacations and retire earlier, so typically work fewer hours; they enjoy a higher life expectancy, presumably reflecting advantages with respect to health care, diet, lifestyle, and the like; and income and consumption are somewhat more equally distributed there than in the U.S. Because of these differences, comparing France’s consumption with the U.S.’s overstates the gap in economic welfare. Similar calculations can be used to compare the U.S. and other countries. For example, this calculation puts economic welfare in the United Kingdom at 97% of U.S. levels, but estimates Mexican well-being at 22%. The Jones-Klenow measure can also assess an economy’s performance over time. According to this measure, as of the early-to-mid-2000s, the U.S. had the highest economic welfare of any large country. Since 2007, economic welfare in the U.S. has continued to improve. However, the pace of improvement has slowed markedly. Methodologically, the lesson from the Jones-Klenow research is that economic welfare is multi-dimensional. Their approach is flexible enough that in principle other important quality-of-life changes could be incorporated—for example, decreases in total emissions of pollutants and declines in crime rates. What is an advantage of the Jones-Klenow method?___